Whether decisions are made by people, AI, or people using AI, we need to keep our critical thinking skills well honed. Constructive skepticism makes for better decision making overall.

If you’d like these posts delivered directly to you, subscribe to the Decisions newsletter now!

Checking Our Own Work

Making decisions means making mistakes, but it’s important to add scrutiny to our decisions when they’re based on facts and evidence.

I know that by calling this out I may very well find myself fact-checked in the future. That’s why I include Notes and Sources at the end of each post; I want to be transparent about where I get the factual information upon which I rely.

Especially in cases where we are basing our decisions on facts, it’s important to make sure that we have the facts straight.

Fraud Supercharged

The snake oil salesman is the classic symbol of the deceitful hustler. Here’s a snippet from the history of snake oil being used a symbol for fraud: [1]

The history of snake oil as a symbol of fraud and deception dates to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It’s widely connected to the story of Clark Stanley, the self-proclaimed “Rattlesnake King” who sold his so-called snake oil as a treatment for joint pain and rheumatism. In reality, his products contained no actual snake oil at all—just mineral oil, beef fat, red pepper, and turpentine. Yet he got away with deceiving his customers for more than two decades.

In academic circles, there are incentives for pushing conclusions and theories out to the public before they are sufficiently vetted. Different from a commercial fraud, the incentives are less about separating a person from their money and more about gaining positive attention for one’s work before the attention is justified.

One of the infamous examples of this comes from the late 1980s. Back in 1989, University of Utah chemist Stanley Pons and University of Southampton chemist Martin Fleischmann announced that they had created a process for nuclear fusion in a room-temperature jar of water. [2]

Nuclear fusion is a real physical process, operating in stars involving isotopes of hydrogen and helium, that can release more energy than is input. If it were ever harnessed effectively, it’s generally considered safer with far fewer byproducts than the processes leveraged in nuclear fission, those that power existing nuclear power plants. However, nuclear fusion requires incredibly high temperatures to operate, and no one has yet figured out how to make this physical process work at scale. [3]

So, when Pons and Fleischmann announced they has a “cold fusion” method for clean energy from seawater without concerns from radioactive waste or greenhouse gases, the world perked up its collective ears. Some publications reported that “their discovery will transform the outlook for the world's energy supplies in the next century.” [4]

Pons and Fleischmann ended up breaking an agreement with another BYU physicist, Steven Jones, who was also researching cold fusion approaches from a different angle, moving to publish and hold their press conference by themselves; the press conference was rushed by the University of Utah to protect patent claims made earlier in the month. [5]

But the biggest problem? No one could reproduce the results independently. The “cold fusion” debacle became a case study in caution for scientific discovery and research. [6]

Fast forward 35 years, and we find that new research into the use of artificial intelligence is suffering the same fate.

In December, the Wall Street Journal published a piece featuring an MIT PhD student and two MIT professors on accelerated innovation in materials science discoveries using AI. [7] A preprint of the paper, [8] submitted to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, circulated widely and has already been cited by 50 other papers, even before it was approved for publication. [9]

Daron Acemoglu, left, is skeptical of AI’s potential benefit for the workforce. David Autor, right, is optimistic. New research by Aidan Toner-Rodgers challenges them both. From the *Wall Street Journal* [10] | *Photograph by Simon Simard for WSJ*

From the Wall Street Journal piece: [10]

Daron Acemoglu, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who recently won the Nobel Prize in economics, worries that artificial intelligence will worsen income inequality and not do all that much for productivity. His friend and colleague David Autor is more hopeful, believing that AI could do just the opposite.
New research from Aidan Toner-Rodgers, an MIT doctoral student, challenges both Acemoglu’s pessimism and Autor’s optimism. Both professors are raving about it.

Well, it turns out that MIT no longer has faith in the finding from the paper, asking that the paper be retracted from publication: [11]

Professor Daron Acemoglu and Professor David Autor, who are acknowledged in a footnote in the paper in question, have offered the following statement:
“The paper 'Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery and Product Innovation' by a former second-year PhD student in the Department of Economics at MIT, is already known and discussed extensively in the literature on AI and science, even though it has not been published in any refereed journal. Over time, we had concerns about the validity of this research, which we brought to the attention of the appropriate office at MIT. In early February, MIT followed its written policy and conducted an internal, confidential review. While student privacy laws and MIT policy prohibit the disclosure of the outcome of this review, we want to be clear that we have no confidence in the provenance, reliability or validity of the data and in the veracity of the research.
“We are making this information public because we are concerned that, even in its non-published form, the paper is having an impact on discussions and projections about the effects of AI on science. Ensuring an accurate research record is important to MIT. We therefore would like to set the record straight and share our view that at this point the findings reported in this paper should not be relied on in academic or public discussions of these topics.”

While the statement from the MIT Economics department described why they were backing away, a more pointed takedown about why MIT may have distanced itself from the publication can be found here by materials scientist Ben Shindel who followed this: [12]

Toner-Rodgers submitted his paper to The Quarterly Journal of Economics, the top econ journal in the world. His website said that he had received a “revise and resubmit” already, meaning that the article was probably well on its way to being published.
Unfortunately for everyone involved, the work is entirely fraudulent. MIT put out a press release this morning stating that they had conducted an internal, confidential review and that they have “no confidence in the veracity of the research contained in the paper.” The WSJ has covered this development as well. The econ department at MIT sent out an internal email so direly-worded on the matter that on first glance, students reading the email had assumed someone had died.

One key question: If the MIT professors (one a Nobel Prize in Economics winner) felt the need to distance themselves from the paper’s findings, why didn’t they scrutinize the work before preprint and be so agreeable to the publicity provided by the WSJ?

As Shindel described this: “The results seemed unsurprising: when researchers were given access to AI tools, they became more productive. That sounds reasonable and expected.” [13]

The proof provided ended up not passing the smell test. This comes back to the ever-present need for the skillset of critical thinking – whether we’re interacting with people, AI, or people using AI. The need for constructive skepticism doesn’t go away.

Deportation Actions “Surely Does Not Pass Muster”

Courts have recently been blocking action by the Trump administration on efforts to deport people from the United States without due process. I wrote about a number of such rulings in last week’s newsletter. [14]

This week “the U.S. Supreme Court, on a 7-2 vote, blocked the Trump administration from deporting people from the Northern District of Texas under President Donald Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation while litigation proceeds.” [15]

“The unusual — and unusually sharp — ruling from the justices was the second time the court blocked deportations under the AEA from the Northern District of Texas. The first time was the temporary overnight order issued April 19 blocking deportations while the court could consider the request it ruled on Friday. Alito, joined by Thomas, dissented from that decision as well.” [16]

From former United States attorney for the Northern District of Alabama Joyce Vance: [17]

“This was not a full decision on the merits of the case, which, when it happens, will determine whether Trump can use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members. This decision was another of the type we’ve seen frequently since Trump retook office, an effort to prevent him from going ahead with a scheme of dubious legality while the courts determine whether that scheme is legal.”
The Supreme Court “emphasized that they are granting the injunction because if they didn’t, the government would deport these people and then claim, as they have in the Abrego Garcia case, that once someone is out of the United States, even when our government is responsible for that, the courts no longer have jurisdiction to hear their cases. That’s as close as the Supreme Court ever comes to accusing the government of perfidy [or deceitfulness].”

The main Supreme Court ruling can be found here [18] as well as Justice Alito’s dissent. [19]

One key element of Alito’s dissent was that he argued that this class of plaintiffs - Venezuelan nationals who are members of Tren de Aragua (TdA) – cannot form a certified class for a habeas petition.

Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck described that Alito in his dissent: [20]

[Alito’s dissent] “then argues that in any event, plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits because (1) class certification isn’t available in a habeas petition; and (2) it isn’t appropriate in this case. (Interestingly, Alito never explains why relief wouldn’t have been appropriate to at least the two named plaintiffs.)”

The ruling itself by SCOTUS to uphold the concept of due process of law in the country is a key one. But, it’s also important to remember that even those on the nation’s highest court aren’t perfect; they make mistakes, whether accidentally or intentionally.

And, specifically for Alito’s dissent, who is checking the work?

This question was asked by University of Texas law professor Lee Kovarsky, asking: “Wanna see something incredibly ... bad? “ [21]

In making his argument, Alito’s dissent seemed to quote “a source to suggest that you can't do habeas class actions” [22]

However… in that very same source, “the next sentence of the source, saying ... that you can do habeas class actions” [23]

Alito seems to be making his argument while cherry-picking statements that back the argument, yet ignoring those that counter it – even those that are in the next sentence of the very same source cited.

Vladeck seems to think that the Court majority is getting a little miffed at Alito, since the Court majority spent several paragraphs countering claims made in Alito’s dissent. [24]

the majority begins by “reject[ing] the dissent’s characterization of the events that transpired on April 18.” That may seem tame by the standards of contemporary public discourse; it’s a pretty sharp elbow in a majority opinion by the Supreme Court. And, again, it appears to reflect real concern on the part of the justices in the majority that the dissenting justices seem so un-troubled by how events appeared to be transpiring back in April.

Effectively, “AEA removals will not happen out of the Northern District of Texas for now.” [25]

Capitulation Train

I’ve written about the need to stand up rather than give in, hoping that things get better or just go away. [26] And President Trump is continuing to prove this true.

ABC settled a defamation claim raised by the former President for $15 million after Trump won the November 2024 election. [27] Now, here is ABC reporting about the kingdom of Qatar provided a golden “palace in the sky” to the country for his use: [28]

In what may be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government, the Trump administration is preparing to accept a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar -- a gift that is to be available for use by President Donald Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation, sources familiar with the proposed arrangement told ABC News.

And the response from President Trump? More threats against ABC, reminding them of the previous defamation settlement and claiming publicly: “I again give these SleazeBags fair warning!” [29]

Mark Jacob, former metro editor at Chicago Tribune and Sunday editor at Sun-Times, reminds us all that cutting a deal with Trump won’t end the bullying: [30]

“When you capitulate to Trump one time, it’s not just one time. You’re aboard his Capitulation Train. Attention law firms, universities and CBS.”

A Little History

Marking the Semiquincentennial of American Independence 250 years ago

May 18, 1775 - Congress learns of the capture of Fort Ticonderoga and that military reinforcements from Britain are on their way to North America. [31] Of course, pre-internet, communication took much longer – Congress learned of the events at Fort Ticonderoga eight days after the fort’s capture.

There was also ongoing fallout from the Fort Ticonderoga capture: [32]

Literally overnight, the capture of Fort Ticonderoga changed the course of the Revolutionary War. The seizure of the British fort was the first victory of the American Revolution, opened a new front to the conflict, and also laid bare the challenges the revolutionaries faced, long before independence.
It took a week for the 2nd Continental Congress to learn of the capture. Presented with a dramatic offensive across colonial borders, threateningly close to a large British-controlled Province to the north, Congress was forced to act. In days and weeks that followed colonists looked for direction from the Continental Congress, but their response required caution.
For years Ticonderoga had effectively been a Canadian outpost in New York. The British troops seized on May 10th had their headquarters in Montréal, not New York. This placed Ticonderoga in a unique position relative to the expansive province of Quebec, with important repercussions in the coming months and years. Canada posed a threat but also provided an opportunity. The presence of British troops there, which could be used to suppress revolutionary activity and coordinate with Canadian and Native American raiders was a fear used to justify the capture. At the same time Canadians and Native Americans might become allies against British oppression, so they could not be alienated.
In the first weeks after the capture, Americans directly addressed the population of Canada to assure them of their intentions. Their war was with the regulars, not the habitants or native peoples. But others urged further action, amounting to a friendly invasion of all of Canada to put the British further on the defensive.
On May 18, 1775, Benedict Arnold raided St Jean in Quebec, seizing the government’s sloop Betsey, renamed Enterprise, and capturing more British soldiers and sailors, which Congress continued to claim as defensive. Seizing the naval power on the lake eased the initial fears of an immediate counterattack.

Narratives

The book I’m reading or movie I’m watching

“Rogue One” - on Disney+

From the Wikipedia overview: [33]

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is a 2016 American epic space opera film directed by Gareth Edwards, from a screenplay by Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy, inspired by a story idea from John Knoll and developed by Gary Whitta. The film was produced by Lucasfilm and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. It is the first installment of the Star Wars anthology series, and an immediate prequel to Star Wars (1977)

Set a week before the events of Star Wars: A New Hope, the plot follows a group of rebels who band together to steal plans of the Death Star, the ultimate weapon of the Galactic Empire. It details the Rebel Alliance's first effective victory against the Empire, first referenced in the Star Wars opening crawl.

From the Star Wars timeline, the two seasons of Andor cover five years prior to Rogue One, which immediately precedes the events in the original Star Wars: A New Hope.

With Andor closing out Season 2 this week, people are watching Rogue One for follow-on viewing, making it #1 on Disney+ this week.

GIF Game

Notes and Sources

[1] Jordan Friedman, “How Snake Oil Became a Symbol of Fraud and Deception,” Smithsonian Magazine, October 21, 2024, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-snake-oil-became-a-symbol-of-fraud-and-deception-180985300/

[2] Erin Alberty, “The University of Utah claimed it achieved cold fusion 35 years ago this week,” Axios, March 18, 2024, https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/03/18/cold-fusion-1989-university-utah-pons-fleischmann

[3] Matteo Barbarino, “What is Nuclear Fusion?” International Atomic Energy Agency, retrieved May 18, 2025, https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-nuclear-fusion

[4] Clive Cookeon, “Scientists claim nuclear fusion produced in test tube,” Financial Times, March 23, 1989, retrieved May 18, 2025, archived at https://archive.org/stream/FinancialTimes1989UKEnglish/Mar%2023%201989%2C%20Financial%20Times%2C%20%2330801%2C%20UK%20%28en%29_djvu.txt

[5] Alberty, “Cold Fusion,” Axios

[6] “Cold fusion: A case study for scientific behavior,” Understanding Science, University of California-Berkeley, retrieved May 18, 2025, https://undsci.berkeley.edu/cold-fusion-a-case-study-for-scientific-behavior/

[7] Justin Lahart, “Will AI Help or Hurt Workers? One 26-Year-Old Found an Unexpected Answer,” Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2024, https://www.wsj.com/economy/will-ai-help-hurt-workers-income-productivity-5928a389

[8] Aidan Toner-Rodgers, “Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.17866 [econ.GN], December 25, 2024, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.17866

[9] “Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation,” Google Scholar, retrieved May 18, 2025, https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=HGmipIYAAAAJ&hl=en

[10] Lahart, “Will AI Help or Hurt Workers?” Wall Street Journal

[11] “Assuring an accurate research record,” Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 16, 2025, https://economics.mit.edu/news/assuring-accurate-research-record

[12] Ben Shindel, “AI, Materials, and Fraud, Oh My!” The BS Detector, May 16, 2025, https://thebsdetector.substack.com/p/ai-materials-and-fraud-oh-my

[13] Ibid.

[14] Mic Farris, “Being a Good Citizen,” May 11, 2025, https://www.micfarris.com/articles/being-a-good-citizen

[15] Chris Geidner, “SCOTUS, in a 7-2 vote, blocks AEA removals from northern Texas during litigation,” Law Dork, May 16, 2025, https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-aea-ndtexas-injunction

[16] Ibid.

[17] Joyce Vance, “SCOTUS to Trump: Due Process!” Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance, May 17, 2025, https://joycevance.substack.com/p/scotus-to-trump-due-process

[18] A.A.R.P., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., 24A1007, 605 U.S. _____ (2025), May 16, 2025, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf

[19] A.A.R.P., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf#page=11

[20] Steve Vladeck, “151. The Supreme Court's (Alien Enemies Act) Patience is Wearing Thin,” One First, May 16, 2025, https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/151-the-supreme-courts-alien-enemies

[21] Lee Kovarsky [@kovarsky.bsky.social], Bluesky, May 16, 2025, https://bsky.app/profile/kovarsky.bsky.social/post/3lpdozwpxt226

[22] Ibid.

[23] Lee Kovarsky [@kovarsky.bsky.social], Bluesky, May 16, 2025, https://bsky.app/profile/kovarsky.bsky.social/post/3lpdozxzzjk26

[24] Vladeck, “The Supreme Court's Patience is Wearing Thin,” One First, May 16, 2025

[25] Geidner, “SCOTUS blocks AEA removals,” Law Dork, May 16, 2025

[26] Mic Farris, “Danger: Intentional and Otherwise,” April 27, 2025, https://www.micfarris.com/articles/danger-intentional-and-otherwise

[27] - Michael R. Sisak, “ABC agrees to give $15 million to Donald Trump’s presidential library to settle defamation lawsuit,” AP News, December 14, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/abc-trump-lawsuit-defamation-stephanopoulos-04aea8663310af39ae2a85f4c1a56d68

[28] Jonathan Karl and Katherine Faulders, “Trump administration poised to accept 'palace in the sky' as a gift for Trump from Qatar: Sources,” ABC News, May 11, 2025, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-poised-accept-palace-sky-gift-trump/story?id=121680511

[29] Donald J. Trump [@realDonaldTrump], Truth Social, May 18, 2025, https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114526479593964662

[30] Mark Jacob [@markjacob.bsky.social], Bluesky, May 18, 2025, https://bsky.app/profile/markjacob.bsky.social/post/3lpgxr34eek2k

[31] “The American Revolution,” Digital Collections, George Washington Papers, Library of Congress, retrieved May 18, 2025, https://www.loc.gov/collections/george-washington-papers/articles-and-essays/timeline/the-american-revolution/

[32] “The Fall of Ticonderoga and the Beginning of the Revolutionary War,” Fort Ticonderoga, May 8, 2025, https://fortticonderoga.org/news/the-fall-of-ticonderoga-and-the-beginning-of-the-revolutionary-war/

[33] “Rogue One,” Wikipedia, retrieved May 17, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_One

Decisions with Mic Farris

Seek Truth. Honor Differences.

Critical Thinking